CASE ANALYSIS OF

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD V. CHIEF

ELECTORAL OFFICER & ORS. 2023

USING
IRAC METHOD WITH
FACTS
PARTIES
 Appellant - National Insurance company ltd
 Respondent 1 – Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar
 Responent 2 - Wife of late Deval Ravidas, Constable
 FACTS
 On February 9, 2000, a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to
 as the "MoU")  was signed by the Appellant, an insurance
company, and Respondent No. 1, the  Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar,
 Patna,  to provide insurance coverage to the people deployed for election
related work during the Bihar Legislative Assembly Elections 2000.
 The husband of Respondent No. 2, late Deval Ravidas, was a Static  Armed
Forces assigned to Booth No.67, Primary School,
Mathura Sultanpur, Police Station Bidupur, District Vaishali, who passed away f
rom a 
sunstroke/heat stroke while on election duty for the Bihar Legislative Assembly. 
He was a Constable with the Shivhar District Force.
 It should be noted that this occurred during the insurance policy's 
extended period. It appears that the
 situation was left at that point for a considerable amount of time,
 and it was only in 2008 that 
Respondent No. 2, the wife of the late Constable Deval, attempted to bring up
the topic of compensation in her letter dated November 21. 

 
 That the deceased Constable died on May 26, 2000, from heat stroke
 while on duty for the election and not   from any external violent 
activity or accident. As a result, it was not possible to  find that 
Respondent No. 2's compensation was payable. Respondent No. 2's wife filed a Writ
 Petition, designated as CWJC No. 1781/2011, with the 
High Court of Judicature in Patna, asking the court to nullify the 
aforementioned letter  dated 20.11.2009 and award her Rs. 10 lakhs in 
insurance benefits because her husband had passed away while serving in an election-
related capacity. 
 The Chief Electoral Officer had already acknowledged in a 
supplementary counter affidavit that the wife of the deceased police  official 
was eligible for  payment, so the learned Single Judge in the 
Writ Petition, CWJC No. 1781/2011, chose not to address the question of whether the a
ccidental death was covered by the policy. 
 The State Government officials, according to the Court, had the primary responsibilit
y to bring a claim
under the policy, but they failed to do so during the policy's validity
 period and allowed the policy to expire. 
 Thus, the Chief Electoral Officer and the District Magistrate, Vaishali,
 were given the responsibility of 
paying the sum to the deceased widow.The ruling dated 17.05.2011, 
which is the subject of the contested
judgement from the High Court's Division Bench on  October 3, 2017,
 was the subject of an appeal filed by  the Chief Election Officer.
THE PATNA HIGH COURT
 The role of the Chief Electoral Officer was limited to
forwarding the recommendation, which it duly did. The
husband of Respondent No.2 died during the currency of
the insurance policy and, thus, it was pleaded that the
Appellant insurance company as the insurer was under
an obligation to honour the promise of paying the
insured amount in case of death of an employee while on
election duty during the sustenance of the insurance
policy.
 ISSUES
 Whether the claim had been made in a timely
 manner?
 Whether the cause resulting from a sun

 stroke be included within the limitations of the "Scope of
Cover" in the insurance policy?
 Whether the appeal is to be granted?
 RULE
 Sec.124 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 - A contract by which one
party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the
conduct of the promisor himself, or by the conduct of any other
person, is called a “contract of indemnity.”
 The Proximate Cause Principle -

The nearest and primary cause of the loss, or the proximate cause, sh
ould be taken into account when  determining the claim for a loss.
 The Indemnity Rule

According to the indemnity principle, the insurance will
 only pay for losses that have already occurred. The insurer will asse
ss the losses carefully and compute them. The 
fundamental goal of this approach is to return your 
financial situation to the way it was before the loss. But,   life
insurance and critical health insurance are exempt
from this rule.
 ANALYSIS
 Weighing the opposing arguments, it is important 
to note two points: first, the repercussions of
 waiting too long to file a claim with the appellant
 insurance company; and second, if the insurance
policy indeed covered the case of the constable's death. 
 Regarding the first issue, it is acknowledged that
 Respondent No. 2 never submitted a claim to the 
Chief Election Officer until the letter dated 
November 21, 2008, which is seven and a half
 years later. As a result, by any standard, this claimwas mad
e too late.
 According to the terms of the MoU, the claim had
 to be filed right away after the incident.
 The cliché that the insurance policy's provisions
 must be read strictly applies here.The insurance contracts are
a unique class of contracts with characteristics that are
commom to all forms of insurances, including the highest
degree of good faith,  insurable interest, indemnity
subrogation, contribution, and proximate cause.
 The precise MoU provision that would control the insurance 
policy and provide for payment of compensation in the case 
of death coming "solely and directly" from an accident brou
ght on by external force or any other obvious cause. 
 So, the accident itself implies a mistake or unfavourable eve
nt, something that is unexpected or unforeseen.
 The cause resulting from a sun stroke cannot,  
in , be included within the limitations of the 
"Scope of Cover" in the insurance policy 
determining when such insurance amount would become
 due if the policy is examined in the
aforementioned context.
COMMENTS
 The Respondent No.1 has to be made liable to
compensate as the death of the officer was during his
course of employment .i.e. while he was on election
duty.Therefore, an implied indemnity exists between the
Respondent No.1 and Respondent No. 2 which was
fulfilled previously. Also,There was no express mention
that the Respondent No.1 would be reimbursed by the
Appellant and even if there was any provision of that
sort it is not covered under the Scope of Cover as the
cause of death was heat stroke.
CONCLUSION
 The Patna High Court Division Bench's contested 
ruling is obviously unjustifiable and is reversed. 
 Given this circumstance, we are fully aware that 
Respondent No. 1  has previously paid the sum  to 
Respondent No. 2's wife in accordance with the 
learned Single Judge's judgement.
It would not be appropriate to allow Respondent No. 1 to rec
over any money from Respondent No. 2 due to
 the complexity of any legal  issue, Respondent No. 2 
having benefited from the position taken by 
Respondent No. 1 regarding the obligation to pay 
Respondent No. 2, and that part of the case should
 now be closed.
 As a result, the appeal is granted, and the parties are responsi
ble for their own costs.